The filed record
Application for Three Variances Respecting One Third Party Electronic Ground Sign - 115 Belfield Road
The Public Gallery wrote no story on this item. What follows is the city’s own record of what happened to it, as filed: nothing on this page is summarised or scored by us.
The decision
2021-08-12 · Sign Variance Committee · adopted
As filed
The Sign Variance Committee: 1. Refused to grant the three requested variances to sections 694-22.E, 694-24.A(16) and 694-24.A(30) required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of the Proposed Sign at the property municipally known as 115 Belfield Road as described in Attachment 1 to this report (July 28, 2021) from the Manager, Sign By-law Unit, Toronto Building.
On the agenda
As the city filed it
Due to Construction Media has stated that they have been authorized by the owner of the property municipally known as 115 Belfield Road (the "Applicant"), to apply for three variances required to allow for a permit to be issued for one third party electronic ground sign with two sign faces, displaying electronic static copy (the "Proposed Sign") at 115 Belfield Road. The Proposed Sign requires three variances as it is proposed to be located along the north frontage of 115 Belfield Road, which is a location which is subject to two different area-specific prohibitions on any third-party signs being erected or displayed, and due to the fact that the Proposed Sign would be located within minimum 150 metres spacing distance applicable to third-party electronic ground signs and other third party signs.
Show the rest of As the city filed it, 2,813 more characters as filed
The Proposed Sign would have a height of 7.62 metres, and would contain two sign faces, in a "back to back" configuration, each measuring 5.79 metres horizontally by 2.91 metres vertically, with a sign face area of 16.85 square metres. The Proposed Sign which is described further in Attachment 1, complies with many of the provisions regulating third party electronic ground signs in sign districts where such signs are permitted. However, the Proposed Sign would be located on premises which is the subject of two separate City Council enacted Site-specific area restrictions prohibiting any third party signs from being erected or displayed. Three variances to Chapter 694 are required to allow the Chief Building Official ("CBO") to issue the sign permit for the Proposed Sign. The requirements in Chapter 694 which have been requested to vary, are as below: 1. § 694-22.E- A third party electronic sign, as permitted by Subsections 694-25A(2), C(2), D(3), D(4), 694-26I(1), (2) and (3) shall not be erected within 150.0 metres of any other lawful third party sign whether or not erected. The Proposed Sign would be within approximately 140 meters of another third party sign located at 1065 Martin Grove Road. 2. § 694-24.A (16) - A third party sign shall not be erected or displayed or caused to be erected or displayed in whole or in part within 400 metres of any limit of any portion of Highway 409 contained within the municipal boundaries of the City - The Proposed Sign would be located within 400 metres of the northern limit of Highway 409 (specifically approximately 200 meters to the north of Highway 409. 3. § 694-24.A (30) - A third party sign shall not be erected or displayed or caused to be erected or displayed in whole or in part on the premises municipally known as 115 Belfield Road or on any other premises within 100 metres of any limit of the premises municipally known as 115 Belfield Road - The Proposed Sign would be located on the premises municipally known as 115 Belfield Road. Following a review of the Applicant's submissions and the results of research and investigation by Sign By-law Unit staff, the CBO has determined that insufficient information has been provided to establish that the Proposed Sign meets all nine of the criteria established in §694-30A of the Sign By-law. Specifically, there is insufficient information to establish that the Proposed Sign: is compatible with the development of the premises and surrounding area; supports the Official Plan objectives for the subject premises and surrounding area; will not alter the character of the premises and surrounding area and, is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the CBO does not support the Sign Variance Committee granting the two requested variances for the Proposed Sign.
Staff recommended
The Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, recommends that: 1. The Sign Variance Committee refuse to grant the three requested variances to sections 694-22.E, 694-24.A(16) and 694-24.A(30) required to allow for the issuance of a permit respecting the erection and display of the Proposed Sign at the property municipally known as 115 Belfield Road as described in Attachment 1 to this report.